Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2564 OF2012K. ARUMUGA VELAIAH APPELLANT(S) VERSUS P.R. RAMASAMY AND ANR. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT NAGARATHNA J.The plaintiff in Original Suit No.101 of 2004 has assailed the judgment and decree passed in Second Appeal No.92 of 2007 by the Madurai Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Madras dated 6th August, 2007 by which, the judgment and decree passed in Appeal Suit No.38 of 2005 by the First Appellate Court i.e. Court of the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, affirming the dismissal of the aforesaid suit by the District Munsiff Court, Devakottai has been sustained. 22. For the sake of convenience the parties herein shall be referred to in terms of their rank and status before the Trial Court.3. The case of the Plaintiff in a nutshell is stated as under : (i) Periyaiya Servai and Muthu Servai, were the sons of Marimuthu Servai. Periyaiya Servai had three sons, being the first and second defendants an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.9151-9153 OF2020MAHARANI DEEPINDER KAUR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS. Petitioners Versus RAJKUMARI AMRIT KAUR AND ORS. Respondents WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 10211-10213 OF2020(Rajkumari Amrit Kaur @ Amrit Harpal Singh vs. Maharani Deepinder Kaur (Since Deceased) Represented by LRs. and Ors.) AND SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 11206-11208 OF2020(Bharat Inder Singh (Deceased) Through LRs. vs. Maharwal Khewaji Trust and Ors.) ORDER Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI.1. These Special Leave Petitions arise out of the common judgment and order dated 01.06.2020 passed by the High Court1 in RSA No.2006 of 2018 (O&M), RSA No.1418 of 2018 (O&M) and RSA No.2176 of 2018 (O&M). 1 High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. 22. The controversy in the instant matters concerns succession to the properties left behind by Raja Harinder Singh, former ruler of Faridkot State. The re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC756REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2948 OF2023Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax & Ors. Appellants versus M/s Safari Retreats Private Ltd. & Ors. Respondents with WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 804 of 2022 & 1030 of 2022 CIVIL APPEAL No.2949 OF2023WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 1036 of 2022 & 90 of 2023 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.846 of 2023 and WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.847 of 2023 JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.FACTUAL ASPECTS1 The issues which broadly arise in this group of matters concern clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (5) of Section 17 of Civil Appeal No.2948 of 2023 etc. Page 1 of 91 the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the CGST Act). There is a challenge to the constitutional validity of the said provision. There is a prayer for reading down the said provision.2. In Civil Appeal Nos. 2948 and 2949 of 2023, the first respondent is engaged in the construction of a shopping mall for the purpose o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... of large chunk of 35 property acquired is by drawing a memorandum of taking possession as state is not going to put other persons in possession or its police force or going to cultivate it or start residing or physically occupy it after displacing who were physically in possession as in the case of certain private persons, ..... v. subhash chandra yograj sinha, air1961sc1596 dwarka prasad v. dwarka das saraf, 1976 (1) scc128 the commissioner of income-tax, mysore, travancore-cochin and coorg, bangalore v. the indo mercantile bank ltd., 1959 (supp2) scr256in romesh kumar sharma v. union of india and ors., (2006) 6 scc510 181 designated in the act and are to continue under the ..... physical possession of the land. on the large chunk of property or otherwise which is acquired, the government is not supposed to put some other person or the police force in possession to retain it and start cultivating it till the land is used by it for the purpose for which it has been acquired. the government .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... follows: 18. we may mention in fairness to counsel that the following, among other decisions, were cited at the bar bearing on the uses of provisos in statutes: cit v. indo-mercantile bank ltd, [air1959sc713:1959. supp (2) scr256 266 : (1959) 36 itr1 ; ram narain sons ltd. v. asstt. cst [air1955sc765: (1955) 2 scr483 493 : (1955) 6 stc627 ; thompson v. dibdin .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(4)SCALE231
ORDER1. The transfer petitions are allowed. Writ Petition Nos. 3270/1999 and 3596/ 1999 pending in the High Court of Delhi are transferred to this Court. 2. Let the matters be listed in the month of January 2001 on a non-miscellaneous day. In the meantime, interim stay granted by the High Court shall stand vacated. 3. Mr. Ravinder Sethi, learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondents undertakes that the manufacturing activity using the hazardous chemicals will cease within 10 days from today. The said undertaking is recorded. The electricity and water connections should not be disconnected. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1934; (1999)1SCC181
ORDER1. The three respondents before us had filed a writ petition before the High Court contending that they should also be considered for the post of Assistant Presenting Officers before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal; and certain posts of Assistant Presenting Officers before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal should be reserved for them.2. Under executive instructions containing G.O. dated 28-1-1982, the State Government, inter alia, provided that the Upper Division Assistants in the State Secretariat are eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Presenting Officer in the U.P. Public Services Tribunal provided they possess the qualification of LL.B. Degree of a recognised University and have sufficient experience and knowledge of Service Rules GO. of 28-1-1982 did not make Munsrims and Assistant Registrars working as Ministerial staff in the U.P. Public Service Tribunal eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Presenting Officers. The respondents thereupon filed the s...
Tag this Judgment!